Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Does Senator Sessions wish to speak?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. Today I rise to offer an amendment to reaffirm the Senate's commitment to cap the homestead exemption. The Kohl-Sessions homestead cap is already in the bill, but a sense of the Senate on this issue is important. It sends a message to the House, which does not have a homestead cap in its bill, that this provision is essential to meaningful bankruptcy reform. The $100,000 cap in the homestead exemption is a bipartisan measure I offered with Senator Sessions which was endorsed by Senator Grassley and was approved unanimously in subcommittee. It also has the endorsement of the congressionally appointed National Bankruptcy Review Commission. Our bipartisan measure closes a loophole that allows too many debtors to keep their luxury homes while their legitimate creditors, such as children, ex-spousal alimony, State governments, universities, retailers, and banks, get left out in the cold. Currently, five States--Florida, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, and South Dakota--allow debtors to protect their homes no matter how high their value. And time after time, millionaire debtors take advantage of this loophole by moving to expensive homes in these States, especially Florida and Texas, and then declare bankruptcy, yet continue to live in a style which is not appropriate to their circumstances. Let me give you just a few examples. A failed Ohio savings and loan owner, who was convicted of securities fraud, wrote off almost $300 million in bankruptcy claims but still held onto the multimillion-dollar ranch that he bought in Florida. A convicted Wall Street financier filed bankruptcy while owing at least $50 million in debts and fines but still kept his $5 million mansion with 11 bedrooms and 21 bathrooms. After his law firm went bankrupt and creditors were already in the process of seizing his two homes in the New York area, former Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn fled to a new $1 million home in Florida although he and his partners were on the line for $100 million. This may not be the most common abuse of the bankruptcy system but it is the most egregious. And given this record, it is not surprising to hear complaints that bankruptcy is no longer used as a tool of last resort and that it has become just another kind of financial planning. If we really want to restore the stigma attached to bankruptcy, these high-profile abuses are the best places to start. Mr. President, our $100,000 homestead cap will stop these abuses, and unless we keep it in the bill in conference we will not really have bankruptcy reform at all, in my opinion. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. At this point I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. KOHL. I believe that Senator Sessions is prepared to come down to the floor to talk on behalf of this amendment, and while he is on his way I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL. I will.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I end by suggesting this is a very important piece of legislation. I am concerned, if we do not have it in the final piece of legislation, that the administration will veto the Bankruptcy Reform Act. So I stress, we need to see to it that the conference report contains this homestead cap of $100,000.

Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Durbin.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the dramatic rise in bankruptcies is very troubling, regardless of whether the blame lies with credit card companies, a culture that disparages personal responsibility, the bankruptcy code or, most probably, with all of the above. While none of us wants to return to the era of ``debtors' prison,'' we need to do something to reverse this trend. But true ``reform'' will only occur if we prevent the most egregious abuse of the bankruptcy laws--misuse of the homestead exemption. And we will only have true reform if we target other abuses without overburdening the vast majority of debtors who truly need--and deserve--relief. And, true reform also requires a balanced approach that targets abusive practices by creditors as well as by debtors. That is why I intend to vote for this bill. It does all three: prevents the most egregious abuses by capping the homestead exemption, uses ``means testing'' to deter other serious abuses without placing unfair burdens on honest debtors, and requires credit card companies to disclose the information consumers need to make intelligent choices. In particular, let me focus on the cap on the homestead exemption that Senator Sessions and I introduced in subcommittee. This proposal, which was adopted by a unanimous 7-0 vote in subcommittee and was unanimously reaffirmed on the floor through a Sense of the Senate resolution, closes a loophole that allows too many debtors to shield their assets in luxury homes, while their creditors get left out in the cold. Currently, a handful of states allow debtors to protect their homes no matter how high their value. And time after time, millionaire debtors move to states with unlimited exemptions, like Florida and Texas, declare bankruptcy--yet continue to live like kings while their creditors get little or nothing. If we want to restore the stigma attached to bankruptcy, these high profile abuses are the best place to start. Our proposal is simple and effective. It caps at $100,000 the maximum homestead exemption that an individual filing bankruptcy can claim. With the cap in place, bankrupt debtors will retain their right to a roof over their heads, but not to luxury accommodations. I am concerned, however, that if this homestead cap is dropped in Conference, the President will veto the bill. That is, if it reaches him, because if the cap is removed, I'll filibuster the Conference Report myself. But since all of the conferees support the homestead cap provision, and since the Senate has now gone on record as saying that the ``cap'' is ``essential to meaningful bankruptcy reform,'' I am confident that we won't have to go that route. Mr. President, when people talk about bankruptcy abuse, the notion of stashing cash in a lavish Florida home is the first thing they think about. And that's not surprising. To borrow a phrase from Bill Bennett, Congress needs to act responsibly to put ``a death to this outrage.'' Overall, I commend Senators Grassley and Durbin for their hard work and close collaboration. I look forward to a final product that continues tackling the worst abuses, while still helping honest debtors.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion on S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act. I do so as a supporter of the bill and as one who supported cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1645. Let me be very clear. I support a family's involvement in a minor's very grave decision to have an abortion. I also support the rights of States to protect minors in their borders by passing constitutional consent measures. In my State of Wisconsin, there is a law that requires minors seeking an abortion to get the permission of a parent, a grandparent, an adult sibling, or a judge in cases where family support is unlikely. The reports of adults driving unrelated minors across state lines to avoid state consent laws are very disturbing. It is bad enough that a minor would make such a large decision and have such a serious procedure without the support of a family member. It is worse that the procedure might be performed far from home and away from the child's family doctor. It is because of these concerns that I supported S. 1645. However, S. 1645 as written is very narrow, and currently would cover only those few states that have strict parental consent laws. It would not cover Wisconsin where the law allows other family members to grant the required consent. In voting in Judiciary Committee to send S. 1645 to the floor, I had assumed that we would be able to address this shortcoming, as well as other technical difficulties with the bill. Unfortunately, the Majority decided to file cloture immediately on the bill before any perfecting amendments could be offered. Under the strict rules of cloture, virtually no amendments to S. 1645 would be in order. Of most concern to me, it would have be out of order to consider an amendment protecting from criminal prosection a grandparent who drove a minor across state lines for an abortion. I supported such an amendment in Committee and think it is a necessary, wise, and humane addition to this legislation. I am sorry that final consideration of this important measure will be pushed aside by partisan procedural wrangling. Consent laws may be one aspect of the highly charged abortion debate on which a majority of the Congress and a majority of the American people can agree. Sadly, we won't have a chance to find out as the rush to the campaign shoves consensus and sound policy off the agenda.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Methamphetamine is a growing problem across the nation, and it is my understanding that New Mexico, because of its proximity to Mexico, is experiencing its own share.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. As the Chairman mentioned, this completes the floor action on the Treasury-General Government bill. By moving this bill forward, we will ensure that important financial operations and law enforcement programs funded through this bill will be fully operational at the start of the fiscal year. I would like to take this opportunity to again thank Chairman Campbell and his staff--Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards. Their fair and able handling of this bill makes it possible for us to move to conference where I hope all outstanding issues will be resolved quickly. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Secretary Rubin for presenting a budget request that was fair. And, I want to thank him and his staff for working with us, throughout the process, to make sure that important Treasury programs receive adequate funding. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Patrick T. Sheedy, who retired last month in Milwaukee after 19 years as a Circuit Court Judge and eight years as Chief Judge for Milwaukee's District 1. Pat Sheedy exemplifies everything that we hope to see in a judge in America. He possesses a brilliant legal mind, a compassionate attitude, and the wit to see the humor in almost every situation. I am proud to say that Judge Sheedy is a complete product of our great state of Wisconsin. He was born in Green Bay and received his undergraduate and his law degree at Marquette University in Milwaukee. In addition to serving 27 years on the bench, Judge Sheedy served his colleagues in a variety of capacities, including as past President of the Wisconsin Bar Association. But, I know his proudest legacy would be his six children and 12 grandchildren. Mr. President, we all know of the difficult demands we place on judges in our country. The grueling schedule and stress of legal negotiations can test the patience of even the most reasonable among us. In these most tense moments, Judge Sheedy could diffuse the most trying situations with a bit of his well-known Irish charm and humor. We all wish Judge Sheedy well in his retirement. But, the City of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin will sorely miss a man who has given back so much to our community and our state.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, last night the Senate passed, on a voice vote, S. 53, a measure dealing with antitrust matters and Major League Baseball. Let the record show that if this bill had come before the Senate in a recorded vote, I would have recused myself on this vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL. I too appreciate the Senator from Ohio's efforts in seeking additional funds for the U.S. Customs Service to better interdict drug traffickers. I look forward to working with him to find an appropriate offset for this amendment. Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, again, I would like to express my thanks to the chairman and the ranking member of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee for their efforts to assist me and the distinguished list of cosponsors of this amendment. I also extend my thanks to the staff of the subcommittee for their efforts, which were nothing less than first rate. Mr. President, this amendment today is another important step toward restoring a balanced drug interdiction strategy. I expect there will be many more steps in the future--steps that are needed if we are going to restore a truly balanced, truly effective drug control strategy. This amendment represents a bipartisan effort to make a targeted and specific investment in stopping drugs before they reach America. It will take similar efforts over the course of the next 3 years to bring our drug strategy back into balance, and most important, back on the course of reducing drug use in our homes, schools, and communities. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the concerns that have been raised. The issue of tax-exempt health clubs has been of concern in my home State of Wisconsin. However, I share the Senator from New Jersey's desire to clarify the intent of the report language. In so doing, we also have the opportunity to emphasize that no one wishes to harm community service organizations who are legitimately using their tax-exempt status to serve our young people, our families, and our seniors through a variety of health-related programs, including health and fitness programs.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McConnell amendment. If this provision is enacted, the traditional bipartisan balance of the Federal Elections Commission will be disrupted. Under this provision the general counsel and staff director of the FEC can essentially be fired by either the three Democratic or Republican Commissioners on the FEC. This amendment has the potential of paralyzing the Federal Elections Commission and further eroding what is already a weakened campaign oversight agency. Mr. President, such a move would be unprecedented in the Federal Government. According to a memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service, no general counsel which is not subject to Senate confirmation may be removed in this manner. It would be ironic that the agency charged with investigating political campaigns is crippled by Congress. When this amendment was put forward in the House of Representatives, the New York Times noted that this provision would cripple the FEC and guarantee ``an open field for influence peddlers and influence buyers.'' In a year when this Congress failed to pass campaign finance reform, it would be even more tragic if we crippled the only watchdogs of our campaign finance system. I urge my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate your input. I Know Senator Grassley will also have a statement on this issue, and that I and the Senator from Colorado would certainly be happy to work with any and all group that may have further concerns as we prepare to conference the Treasury- General Government Appropriations bill with the House.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment by Senator Glenn to bring the funding for the Federal Elections Commission to the level requested by the administration. Mr. President, we have watched during the last few years as public confidence in our electoral system has crumbled. We've seen investigations, deliberations, orations--but nothing substantive to improve how we elect Members of Congress. We all know that despite the strong efforts of many in this institution--especially Senator McCain and my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold--we have not passed genuine campaign finance reform. At the same time, the workload at the FEC has exploded. Since 1991, campaign spending has increased by nearly 150 percent. The number of audits have gone up 110 percent. And the sheer number of transactions recorded by the FEC has increased by 157 percent. This increase in work has come at a time when the FEC, an independent federal agency, has lost employees. In the last three years the number of full time employees has actually dropped from 314 to 300. With this increase in work and decrease in staff, it should not be a surprise that the FEC--the agency charged with investigating campaign fraud and abuse--has been forced to drop legitimate cases because of insufficient resources. In 1998 alone, of the cases the FEC dismissed, nearly two out of three cases were dropped because the FEC did not have the resources to fully investigate them. Mr. President, if I came before this body today and told you that criminals were being let out of jail because there were not enough policemen on the beat, we would rush to provide more resources to law enforcement. But because those allegedly breaking the law are political candidates and campaigns, we are ignoring the problem. The House of Representatives recognized the deficiency in funding and voted to bring the FEC budget to $36.5 million. Senator Glenn's amendment would do the same, and without increasing overall spending. Mr. President, we should have passed meaningful campaign finance reform this year, but we did not. Therefore, the only real improvement we can make to our campaign finance system is to provide the policemen of that systems the tool they need to enforce our laws. The Glenn amendment will provide that additional support, and I urge its passage.

Mr. KOHL. Yes, it was. But while addressing those concerns, we certainly do not wish the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] to reinvent the wheel. The IRS has issued several private letter rulings and technical advice memoranda (including Technical Advice Memorandum 8502002) over the past years regarding the circumstances when adult fitness can be a charitable activity. It is my understanding that these rulings have stated that adult fitness is a charitable activity as long as the program serves a broad section of the community.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. One had to abort a fetus with no brain. Not only did they have the heartbreak of a failed pregnancy, but they also faced the high financial burden of a major operation not covered by insurance. The second letter tells of a family that had to abort non-viable twins. The cost of this complicated and necessary abortion bankrupted them. I understand and respect the deeply held convictions of both sides in the abortion debate. But it is not fair to allow our heated political debate to do real harm to the people who work for the government. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Tennessee. The Senator, I believe, shares the concerns of those of us who drafted section 642--we want to make sure the Federal government does not buy goods made with child labor. However, his amendment, by eliminating the list of suspect goods that Section 642 requires the Department of Labor to make, will make it very difficult for Federal contractors to know whether they are buying a product manufactured by children. Section 642 requires the Department of Labor print a list of products that may have been produced with forced child labor. Any federal contractor that sells these products to the government will be put on notice that the items he or she sells might have been produced by child labor. Those businesses then will have to check their suppliers and get assurances that they are not illegally selling a goods produced by children to the government. The importance of this list of products that are potentially made with child labor cannot be underestimated. This list will allow federal agencies to focus on specific industries that use child labor most often. It will allow us to be vigilant in our efforts to stop the procurement of such goods. When the government buys soccer balls for the West Point soccer team, we need to be sure they were not sewn together by children. When the government buys tea for the cafeterias and commissaries of federal facilities, we ought to know those leaves were not picked by children. I want to commend Senator Harkin for his tireless work on behalf of the exploited children of the world. By putting in place a process by which Federal contractors can know about and be held accountable for products they sell to the government, Senator Harkin has done a significant patriotic act. He has ensured that the United States is not in any way sanctioning, promoting, or even tolerating shameful exploitation of children. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thompson amendment--and to vote against diluting protections against government purchase of goods made with child labor.

Mr. KOHL. We accept that. That is fine.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Ashcroft amendment on marriage penalty tax relief. Let me quickly point out that I strongly support the Senator from Kansas' intentions and believe that most, if not all, of my Senate colleagues do as well. Americans should be free to marry or remain single based on much more important considerations than those related to tax liability. That said, the Treasury-General Government appropriations bill is not the proper context for the marriage penalty debate. Now is simply not the right time or place. The Senate voted in favor of marriage tax relief during debate on the tobacco bill. And we all look forward to resuming this debate if and when we are able to take up, and it's my hope that we do take up, a comprehensive tax relief measure later this year. The marriage tax relief issue should be debated at that time, in the context of our overall budget priorities. Simply put, we've come too far in our efforts to enforce fiscal discipline to change course now and arbitrarily adopt major and expensive tax policy mesaures on appropriations bills. I will oppose the Aschcroft amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.